Appeal to authority, forefathers logical fallacy?

[ArturiusX]

Does the nation of America have to constantly and consistantly debate the intentions and definitions provided by the "founding fathers" to decide its current course and future prospects? Is it not a logical fallacy to argue the long-dead points of long-dead peoples that have no modern context? Are we indeed bound to the continuous recycling of interpreting old words and connotations, or can we actually reinvent new meanings for these old decrees?

Seeds: This applies to digital search and seizure, high crimes and misdemeanors, rights to congregate, and so on.

[David Sklansky]

I've wondered the same thing.

[UpstateMatt]

I think you need to differentiate between two types of appeals to the Founding Fathers. The first case, in which I agree with you, is when someone justifies a stance based on a personal opinion of a Founder. Ex. Jefferson hated organized religion / Franklin was a pacifist / Washington freed his slaves /etc. IN those cases, I agree with your point.

However, i think it is quite important to understand the Founders views on specific matters of the Constitution, to the degree that we believe the original intent of the Constitution is an importnat element of the structure of stable government. (You may choose to argue that original intent has no bearing on Constitutional doctrine, but that would be quite a radical view, and one that would tend to limit the entire purpose of Constitution -- to put a higher set of laws in place that cannot be adjusted by swings the popular opinion of majorities.

In this second case, I think it is very important to understand, for example, what the Founders were thinking when they authored Article I, or the 2nd amendment. If we disregard their original intent completely, we don't have a Constitution in the formal sense, we just have a bunch of words open to the various interpretations of today or tomorrow's majority. When that is the case, we don't have rights, just pure democracy.

cheers
matt

[Prodigy54321]

I've been quite annoyed at this recently as well...

If something is broken by our standards today, we should fix it. So marriage is defined as between a man and a woman..so what?..if we've come to the realization that this standard is bizarre and outdated, why not change it?

This is how we got to allowing black people and women equal rights..if we had resigned ourselves to holding past opinions as somehow more imprtant than our own, there would be no progress.

Our moralities change...by claiming past decisions as hallowed ground, we diminish out ability to make progress to the point of the new morality.

we are talking about "rulings" made hundreds of years ago...and by people whos opinions we would today see as bigoted and wholly irrational. Yet we seem to hold an odd respect for their opinions.

Now I'm sure that there is good reason why past precedent should be respected..but IMO, if we can't revisit issues and independently come to the same conclusion that a past committee came to, then we shouldn't hold their conclusion in such high regard. We do not need to ignore our new opinion of it in favor of what some dusty document says. The most probably reasons why we would come to a new and different conclusion are that new relevant information has been brought up, or our new sense of things has demanded a new look at the old issue. Again, by ignoring this, our ability to progress is diminished.

now someone tell us all why respecting past conclusions is an important part of any ordered procedure. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Because I'm not informed enought to go into it.

[Moose13]

I think I remember hearing something in a political science class once about how the founding fathers actually intended that the constution be pretty much rewritten by new generations. Does anyone know if this is actually true or not?

[ArturiusX]

[ QUOTE ]
I've wondered the same thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no doubt our forefathers have some good ideas that still hold current today, but citing them as an 'end of discussion' type arguement is folly and counter productive. Using them as a "well our forefathers argued this way back when, and by observing the following factors, I believe they still have a point despite the difference in time" is acceptable though.

[Shandrax]

We have the same problem in Germany. The fathers and mothers of our constitution have some idol status which totally overvalues their actual contribution and gives them some sort of flawless superwise know-it-all god type of status.

The reason is simple. Our constitution forms the basis for every single law, therefore it must have a special status. Since it did not come from god himself, the creators have to get some godlike status to compensate in order to make people believe that it is right.

You got the same problem in the US. Since your constitution didn't come from god, why should you live according to these rules and not according to your own rules? The little trick of turning the founding fathers of your country into some sort of holy people who have to be trusted, you get that little extra weight to their ruling.

It is of course totally wrong and not in line with Descartes vision of a democracy (people should only obey the rules they have given themselves), but that's how all the modern states work.

At least we have the advantage that our "forefathers" lived 50-250 years ago and not 1000 years ago like prophet Mohammed. That's why our system is not that outdated yet. This also shows why modern states had to abandon church from politics. It was simply impossible to work with a 2000 year old set of rules.

[cambraceres]

There is an important nuance to consider in your question. If one were trying to argue the point that we should, as a civilization, pedantically adhere to the tenents of a possibly outdated article, it would be a hard, losing fight.
On the other hand, if one were to assert that the standard of philosophical acumen displayed by our forefathers must be maintained, he would be correct in many eyes, including mine.
The US is based on a system of legal decisions that, in the end, serve the basic purpose of framing a society capable of being a true power.
I'd like to hear someone argue the "Strict Constructionist" viewpoint, for comic value and to show how ridiculous it would be to never amend, and never extrapolate.

Cam

[Phil153]

Cambraceres pretty much covered it.

Also, what's the deal with calling everything a logical fallacy? This isn't a logical question, but one of values and practicalities.

[drunkencowboy]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you need to differentiate between two types of appeals to the Founding Fathers. The first case, in which I agree with you, is when someone justifies a stance based on a personal opinion of a Founder. Ex. Jefferson hated organized religion / Franklin was a pacifist / Washington freed his slaves /etc. IN those cases, I agree with your point.

However, i think it is quite important to understand the Founders views on specific matters of the Constitution, to the degree that we believe the original intent of the Constitution is an importnat element of the structure of stable government. (You may choose to argue that original intent has no bearing on Constitutional doctrine, but that would be quite a radical view, and one that would tend to limit the entire purpose of Constitution -- to put a higher set of laws in place that cannot be adjusted by swings the popular opinion of majorities.

In this second case, I think it is very important to understand, for example, what the Founders were thinking when they authored Article I, or the 2nd amendment. If we disregard their original intent completely, we don't have a Constitution in the formal sense, we just have a bunch of words open to the various interpretations of today or tomorrow's majority. When that is the case, we don't have rights, just pure democracy.

cheers
matt

[/ QUOTE ]

Washington freed the slaves? lol oh yeah i forgot right after he cut down the cherry tree with a chainsaw